Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #section230
Most recents (24)
Here we go. Defamation case against OpenAI regarding allegedly false ChatGPT outputs. H/T @CathyGellis courthousenews.com/wp-content/uplā¦
More coverage from Eugene Volokh here: reason.com/volokh/2023/06ā¦
(I'm already getting the #Section230 questions...)
I agree w/Prof. Volokh's take overall. I can see the complaint failing without needing to even reach the 230 issues. It doesn't seem OpenAI was put on notice of the alleged false output by the plaintiff + damages are suspect.
I agree w/Prof. Volokh's take overall. I can see the complaint failing without needing to even reach the 230 issues. It doesn't seem OpenAI was put on notice of the alleged false output by the plaintiff + damages are suspect.
Hello and welcome to my live reading of the recent SCOTUS #Section230 cases. Since Gonzalez was rightfully vacated, this thread will focus on the Twitter v. Taamneh opinion. Let's dig in:
Gonzalez: supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdfā¦
Taamneh: supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdfā¦
Gonzalez: supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdfā¦
Taamneh: supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdfā¦
And if you're new here / just tuning in, you can start with my primer on the cases here: jessmiers.medium.com/what-to-expectā¦
Strong start: content moderation at scale is HARD
.@DrJBhattacharya: Decisions to censor #COVID19 some science harmed "every single American."
Sitting in at the @EnergyCommerce hearing, āPreserving #FreeSpeech & Reining in #BigTech #Censorship," with @DrJBhattacharya, @SethDillon, @ShellenbergerMD, @SpencerOverton testifying. twitter.com/i/web/status/1ā¦
Sitting in at the @EnergyCommerce hearing, āPreserving #FreeSpeech & Reining in #BigTech #Censorship," with @DrJBhattacharya, @SethDillon, @ShellenbergerMD, @SpencerOverton testifying. twitter.com/i/web/status/1ā¦
.@ShellenbergerMD is proposing legislated full transparency by #BigTech platforms, mandating public disclosure of each censorship decision, and an opportunity to respond.
"An existing transparency proposal before Congress would further empower and docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IFā¦ā¦ twitter.com/i/web/status/1ā¦
"An existing transparency proposal before Congress would further empower and docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IFā¦ā¦ twitter.com/i/web/status/1ā¦
@ShellenbergerMD The correct Energy & Commerce Committee Twitter is @HouseCommerce.
I intended to live tweet, but I'm engrossed in the discussion & the very different worldviews which different congressional members seem to hold.
& you can catch the whole hearing hereš
I intended to live tweet, but I'm engrossed in the discussion & the very different worldviews which different congressional members seem to hold.
& you can catch the whole hearing hereš
I'm listening to the Broadband Breakfast summit today (you can too for $9 š). Tweeting sporadically.
broadbandbreakfast.com/big-tech-speecā¦
broadbandbreakfast.com/big-tech-speecā¦
Happening now: PANEL 1: THE BIG PICTURE FOR BIG TECH
Amy Peikoff (Parler legal / policy): notes a need for "separation" between state and Internet companies.
Amy Peikoff (Parler legal / policy): notes a need for "separation" between state and Internet companies.
Amy comments on the problem of jawboning. "The governments put pressure on these platforms and the platforms comply."
Suggestion here being that states need to pull themselves out of the tech discourse.
Suggestion here being that states need to pull themselves out of the tech discourse.
Hello -- I interrupt the past two weeks of ranting about SCOTUS and #Section230 to bring you this *really freaking important* piece of legal scholarship by @ericgoldman.
This article pissed me off and I hope it pisses you off too. Welcome to Jess after darkš§µ
This article pissed me off and I hope it pisses you off too. Welcome to Jess after darkš§µ
What if told you that there's an emerging popular litigation scheme that involves throwing as many defendants into a complaint as a Plaintiff can think of regardless of cause, jurisdiction, or the basic rules of civil procedure?
(we're talking like hundreds of defendants)
(we're talking like hundreds of defendants)
What if I told you that those same plaintiffs don't typically incur additional costs for this throw-defendants-at-the-wall scheme?
You can tune in for the "Platform Accountability: Gonzalez and Reform" #Section230 hearing here at 2pm ET / 11am PT. I'll be live-tweeting (for as long as I can stand it...).
judiciary.senate.gov/committee-actiā¦
judiciary.senate.gov/committee-actiā¦
Hearing just started. Here we go....
Sen. Blumenthal out the gate: "reform is coming to Section 230."
1. This will not be a good hearing: 4 witnesses (3 lawyers) who want to fundamentally change #Section230 and only 1 to defend the law that made today's interactive Internet possible, who isn't a lawyer, so won't be able to debunk the misinformation about how 230 actually works]
2. @SenateJudiciary failed to publish their written testimony in advance. SOP is to publish testimony 1-2 day before the hearing to foster a more informed discussion.
But, of course, that's not really the purpose of this hearing...
But, of course, that's not really the purpose of this hearing...
3. Blumenthal: we have bipartisan consensus on reining in Big Tech. We don't agree on everything but I want to thank Sen. Hawley for his leadership on this issue
Hawley be all like:
Hawley be all like:
1. I've disagreed with @gigibsohn about the biggest telecom issues for 15 yearsābut those issues aren't why her nomination floundered. Multiple Dem Senators feared supporting someone who had called out Fox for what it was in the Trump years: "state-sponsored propaganda"
2. In 2020, Senate Republicans summoned Twitter, Facebook & Google CEOs for a hearing on their alleged "bias" against conservatives. The Dem chair asked why broadcasters weren't there. Gigi tweeted this:
3. šs claim Gigi wants to "censor" Fox News. Nonsense. She merely objected tošs weaponizing the hearing against new media companies they hate for nakedly political reasons, while saying nothing about old media that spew MAGA propaganda
Next #Section230 SOTN panel starting with @joellthayer noting that FOSTA was important for taking down Backpage...
The DOJ took Backpage down before FOSTA was enacted. But details.
The DOJ took Backpage down before FOSTA was enacted. But details.
Yael Eisenstat (ADL): "where does Section 230 stop? where are the lines?"
Section 230(e) is a good starting place.
Section 230(e) is a good starting place.
@MattPerault importantly reiterating those limits. #Section230 is not a defense to federal criminal prosecution. Congress has the tools to create legislation in this area if they feel it necessary.
I'm sitting next to @AriCohn who unsurprisingly is even funnier in person
.@ma_franks kicks it off with two points:
1. the 230 (c)(1) immunity overwrites the (c)(2) good faith moderation provision;
2. 230 operates like a "super immunity" reaching beyond publication torts (i.e. defamation).
1. the 230 (c)(1) immunity overwrites the (c)(2) good faith moderation provision;
2. 230 operates like a "super immunity" reaching beyond publication torts (i.e. defamation).
Live now: State of the Net conference #SOTN, featuring Assistant Attorney General for #antitrust Jonathan Kanter & @B_Fung
stateofthenet.org/sotn-23/
stateofthenet.org/sotn-23/
#SOTN #Section230 panel opens with @ma_franks claiming the law protects only against liability for defamation and related claims supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/2ā¦
If that were all 230 did, why did Congress spell out things didn't 230 affect completely unrelated to defamation and the like?
If that were all 230 did, why did Congress spell out things didn't 230 affect completely unrelated to defamation and the like?
@ma_franks .@MA_Franks relies entirely on the "Good Samaritan" heading for 230(c) to argue that (c)(1) must require good faith efforts to block content. If Congress had intended to make (c)(1) immunity contingent on good faith, it would have said so, as it did in (c)(2)(A)
#SOTN
#SOTN
The classic #trilemma goes: "Fast, cheap or good, pick any two." The #ModeratorsTrilemma goes, "Large, diverse userbase; centralized platforms; don't anger users - pick any two." 1/
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
pluralistic.net/2023/03/04/picā¦ 2/
pluralistic.net/2023/03/04/picā¦ 2/
The Moderator's Trilemma is introduced in "Moderating the Fediverse: Content Moderation on Distributed Social Media," a superb paper from @ARozenshtein of @UofMNLawSchool, forthcoming in the journal @JournalSpeech, available as a prepub on @SSRN:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfā¦ 3/
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfā¦ 3/
Twitter v. Taamneh just started. I'll be live tweeting. Listen here: supremecourt.gov/oral_argumentsā¦
JCT kicks it off driving at the substantial assistance Q.
Hypo: JCT's friend is a mugger and JCT loans him a gun knowing that the friend *may* use it to commit a crime. Does he need to know more to qualify aiding / abetting?
Hypo: JCT's friend is a mugger and JCT loans him a gun knowing that the friend *may* use it to commit a crime. Does he need to know more to qualify aiding / abetting?
Petitioners note that the facts in Twitter's case are much more remote than JCT's example. Twitter doesn't have any reason to know or even infer the same of its users.
Yesterday was only a little busy...so I'm sharing some quick thoughts about the Gonzalez oral args today.
All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic. I was prepared for the Internet's ultimate doomsday.
We're not quite there (yet). #Section230 š§µ
All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic. I was prepared for the Internet's ultimate doomsday.
We're not quite there (yet). #Section230 š§µ
Starting with a few moments that gave me hope:
Most surprising for me was Justice Thomas. Right out the gate, he essentially questioned why this case was even being heard.
Which would be totally fair had he not been begging for a 230 case to opine on since 2019 but I digress.
Most surprising for me was Justice Thomas. Right out the gate, he essentially questioned why this case was even being heard.
Which would be totally fair had he not been begging for a 230 case to opine on since 2019 but I digress.
Another surprise:
The Court seemed to appreciate that algorithms and content moderation are essential to the way the Internet functions today and that attempts to create imprecise legal and technological distinctions could have irreparable effects on the modern web.
The Court seemed to appreciate that algorithms and content moderation are essential to the way the Internet functions today and that attempts to create imprecise legal and technological distinctions could have irreparable effects on the modern web.
Lolā¦ this thumbnail for a livestream on YouTube of the oral argument is killing me š¤£
And so fitting for the discussion.
#GonzalezvGoogle #Section230
And so fitting for the discussion.
#GonzalezvGoogle #Section230
Oh geezā¦ and the YouTuber is rebroadcasting the CSPAN feed š¬š«£š
youtube.com/live/zTBwI99iPā¦
youtube.com/live/zTBwI99iPā¦
In light of the Gonzalez v. Google oral argument, I thought I'd re-up some of my views on the ways the Court could go. Put simply, the Court is evaluating what does the text of Section 230(c)(1) actually say and do? Pretty loaded question, indeed.
newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-gooā¦
newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-gooā¦
Let's start with the basics. Section 230 (c)(1) says that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Notice that there is no mention of the word "immunity" in the text. All the statute says is that we cannot treat an "interactive computer service" provider, in this case Google's YouTube, as the publisher or speaker of a third-party post, such as a YouTube video. That's it.
1/ Have I gotten enough sleep to coherently live-tweet the Gonzalez v. Google #Section230 argument at SCOTUS?
Let's find out!
supremecourt.gov/oral_argumentsā¦
Let's find out!
supremecourt.gov/oral_argumentsā¦
2/ If you need a refresher on, or intro to, the case -- what Sec. 230 is, how it came to be, what's at stake in this case -- there are a thousand pieces floating around.
But this here's my nifty thread (š) so here's my essay for Reason doing all that.
reason.com/2022/11/04/secā¦
But this here's my nifty thread (š) so here's my essay for Reason doing all that.
reason.com/2022/11/04/secā¦
3/ And, FYI, after the argument I'll be doing a breakdown of the argument for @ProgressChamber, alongside @jess_miers, @CathyGellis, and @ericgoldman.
us06web.zoom.us/meeting/registā¦
us06web.zoom.us/meeting/registā¦
Why is @LinkedIn censoring ME over MY OWN QUOTE from the front page of @FoxNews this morning? What about ANY of it is misinformation? Big tech is out of control attacking & censoring @GunOwners!š¤¬
#SecondAmendment #WeAreNoCompromise #Censorship #BigTech #Section230
#SecondAmendment #WeAreNoCompromise #Censorship #BigTech #Section230
Here is @ATFHQ's internal "Zero Tolerance" manual they are using to drive as many gun stores out of business as possibleā¤µļø
gunowners.org/wp-content/uplā¦
gunowners.org/wp-content/uplā¦
And here is @ATFHQ admitting they have 920,664,765 out-of-business records in a databaseā¤µļø
gunowners.org/wp-content/uplā¦
gunowners.org/wp-content/uplā¦
The U.N. is a happy organization?
This happynwo site is now the forwarding address for: unnwo.org (which was a blank site in 2020 with only "āø Copyright New World Order Project 2020" at the bottom.)
Hmm.š¤
happynwo.org #NewWorldOrder
This happynwo site is now the forwarding address for: unnwo.org (which was a blank site in 2020 with only "āø Copyright New World Order Project 2020" at the bottom.)
Hmm.š¤
happynwo.org #NewWorldOrder
Ha! Found it.
In Gonzalez v. Google, SCOTUS has a chance to clarify #Section230's meaning. Courts interpret Section 230 as shielding #BigTech from practically all civil liability when 3rd party content is at issue. I argue that nothing in the text supports that reading. newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-gooā¦
One option to rectify this is that tech companies should only be protected from causes of action that target a speaker or publisher, such as defamation suitsāas opposed to protecting them from enforcement actions via federal civil statutes.
Another option would be to shield companies from liability for hosting and displaying content, but hold them responsible when they take actions beyond those of a traditional publisher, such as when they algorithmically push certain content to users.
@simonateba Growing up in Southern Illinois, I was Raised to be Democrat. Mom thought Dems were all like JFK & Lincoln. Both never had the opportunity to achieve their dreams. Both Assassinated. My Great Great Grandfather was in Illinois Regiment & died at Shiloh. Was it all in vain? War?
@simonateba I voted 4 Pres. Clinton. Then my Vermont Progressive Liberal Town āFathersā tried to sell My Farm paying $10,000 9 months late & only notified My Husband. traveloguefortheuniverse.blogspot.com/search?q=Propeā¦ Me, White Flatlander, Nurse w/MS. Nobody cared. Lawyer: Town would only get up on the Stand and Lie.
@simonateba Had to move away, The Hurt still there. I flipped to Republican. Neither Party Perfect. All Politicians are, well, Politicians. Independent Party, other parties negated. Pres. Biden laughed throughout His Victory Lap. Half of Americans Negated. Uniter became Un-tie-er.
š HERE WE GO #FOSO2022
To start us off, @CenDemTech's Director of Policy Samir Jain joins long-time #FreeSpeech advocate + lawyer @WilmerHale's @pjcarome to explore how law around online speech has developed over the past 30 years.
šŗ Day 2 Livestream:
To start us off, @CenDemTech's Director of Policy Samir Jain joins long-time #FreeSpeech advocate + lawyer @WilmerHale's @pjcarome to explore how law around online speech has developed over the past 30 years.
šŗ Day 2 Livestream:
@WilmerHale @pjcarome CDT's Jain: "We at @CenDemTech thought it appropriate to use this occasion to honor & recognize @pjcarome for his many contributions to the development of the law concerning the 1st Admt & free speech, particularly as countryās preeminent advocate around #Section230." #FOSO2022
@WilmerHale @pjcarome CDT's Jain: This fall was the 25th anniversary of 4th Circuitās decision in Zeran v America Online, the seminal decision that set course for how courts around the country have interpreted #Section230 until now... I was fortunate enough to work w/ Pat & saw firsthand his tenacity.
š š¢ TODAY IS THE (FIRST) DAY! #FOSO2022
Can't wait to have you join us IN 1 HR ā just a *few* of the amazing speakers lined up:
* @AlexReeveGivens
* @viaCristiano
* @YaelEisenstat
* @jamalgreene
* @JulieOwono
* @MattPerault
It's not too late to join!šŗ:
Can't wait to have you join us IN 1 HR ā just a *few* of the amazing speakers lined up:
* @AlexReeveGivens
* @viaCristiano
* @YaelEisenstat
* @jamalgreene
* @JulieOwono
* @MattPerault
It's not too late to join!šŗ:
@AlexReeveGivens @viaCristiano @YaelEisenstat @jamalgreene @JulieOwono @MattPerault Leading off today's incredible series of convos is an intro from CDT CEO @AlexReeveGivens - "We are looking at the most active term on #OnlineSpeech issues in the #SupremeCourtās history, including the Courtās first look at #Section230."
šŗ Livestream:
šŗ Livestream:
@AlexReeveGivens @viaCristiano @YaelEisenstat @jamalgreene @JulieOwono @MattPerault .@AlexReeveGivens: This focus on how tech works in practice is a hallmark of CDT's advocacy going back to the beginnings of the org... essential for the Court to understand broad implications of its decisions. We hope the convos weāll host over the course of #FOSO2022 can help.
@elonmusk Iām a Self Described Twitter-holic š¤¦āāļø
Itās been 13 Years since I became hooked on this Public Forum. Since You took over, Iāve seen roughly Same amount of Rude anti-Trump & Conservative Vibe (allowed under Paraga).
I donāt see the Conservatives Slinging the same rot.
Itās been 13 Years since I became hooked on this Public Forum. Since You took over, Iāve seen roughly Same amount of Rude anti-Trump & Conservative Vibe (allowed under Paraga).
I donāt see the Conservatives Slinging the same rot.
Before @elonmusk it is clear my Conservative Friend Followers and Ones I follow complained about losing a Thousand followers in a day, being labeled misinformation or being cancelled. Meanwhile Pootin kept tweeting while blowing up Civilians, Women, Children, whole Cities.
Half of Twitterers, some Bots or duplicate accounts by one person, Rejoiced when #realDonaldTrump Banished for Life from Twitter. Other Half of Twitterers->Yes, Weāre MAGA & know Censorship is a Violation of #BillofRights. #Section230 specified No Editing! @jack said: my bad š„
